JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. 2. One Qudratullah was admittedly the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. The plaintiff, who was the landlord, served on Qudratullah a composite notice dated 14-8-1968 requiring him to pay the arrears of rent, and also terminated his tenancy. It has been found that Qudratullah owed more than thirty months rent on the date of the issue of the notice dated 14-8-1968. It has also been found that Qudratullah or his heirs did not pay the arrears of rent within the time prescribed by law under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 3. According to the plaintiff the notice was served on Qudratullah on 15-2-1968. However, it appears that the notice was not personally served and was deemed to have been served, as the plaintiff proved that the registered letter with the correct address of Qudratullah was sent to him by registered post. The finding of the lower appellate court is that Qudratullah must have been served with the notice dated 14-8-1968. 4. It has been found that Quadratullah died on 29th August, 1968. 5. The lower appellate court has dismissed the suit for ejectment on the ground that though the notice dated 14th August, 1968 was served on Qudratullah, but as he died on 29-8-1968, i. e. before thirty days of the service of the aforesaid notice dated 14-8-1968 the notice came to an end and the suit for ejectment could not be decreed as no fresh notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the heirs of Qudratullah who were the respondents in this appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal. The only question is whether the notice dated 14-8-1968 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act became ineffective due to the death of Qudratullah on 29-8-1968. 7. A lease is defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transfer of a right to enjoy any property, A lease under the Transfer of Property Act is heritable, and in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the rights of lessee can also be transferred. 8. 7. A lease is defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transfer of a right to enjoy any property, A lease under the Transfer of Property Act is heritable, and in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the rights of lessee can also be transferred. 8. A lease of immovable property can be determined under Section 111 of the T. P. Act on one of the modes mentioned therein. Section 111 sub-clause (h) provides: "A lease of immovable property determines on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit or of the intention to quit the property leased duly given by the party to the other." In this case it has been found that a proper notice had been served on Qudratullah by the plaintiff determining the tenancy. If Qudratullah had survived, the lease would undoubtedly have determined on the expiry of the period of notice mentioned therein. 9. The heirs of Qudratullah stepped into his shoes in the sense that they acquired the lease-hold rights, specially all the rights and liabilities of Qudratullah. One of the liabilities which they took over was that in view of the notice under Section 106 served on Qudratullah the lease would determine on the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice, dated 14-8-1968. 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as Qudratullah was dead on the date when the tenancy was to determine, the respondents who were the heirs of Qudratullah were entitled to a fresh notice from the plaintiff landlord determining their tenancy and therefore, as no such notice was given, the tenancy continued. 11. As has been pointed out earlier the respondents were in no better position than Qudratullah. If Qudratullah had lived, his tenancy would have been determined on the expiry of the period of notice given in the notice sent by the plaintiff dated 14-8-1968. 12. There is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act to indicate that the death of a lessee or the lessor operates to render void a notice terminating the tenancy issued by the lessor to the lessee. 13. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate court must be held to be erroneous. 14. 12. There is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act to indicate that the death of a lessee or the lessor operates to render void a notice terminating the tenancy issued by the lessor to the lessee. 13. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate court must be held to be erroneous. 14. The suit for ejectment should have been decreed as it has been found that the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent which amounted to more than three months rent, despite the service of a valid notice demanding the arrears of rent and determining the tenancy of Qudratullah within thirty days of the service of a composite notice mentioned above. 15. No argument has been addressed to this court as to the validity and the correctness of the finding of the lower appellate court that the rate of rent was Rs. 8/- per month, and not Rupees 10/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff appellant for ejectment is decreed. The appellant will also be entitled to arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month, as decreed by the trial court, from the date of the institution of the suit, and damages for use and occupation at the same rate as the rent decreed, namely, Rs. 8/- per month from the date of suit till the execution of the decree for ejectment. 17. In view of the divided success of the parties, they will bear their own costs. The execution of the decree for ejectment shall remain stayed provided the respondent deposits all the arrears of rent due up to the end of January, 1979, including the sum payable as damages for use and occupation, by the 28th of February, 1979 and makes deposit at the rate of Rs. 8/-per month by the 29th of each succeeding month. In the event of the respondent not making the deposit as directed, the decree for ejectment shall become executable forthwith.